Arkansas State Highway Com'n v. Security Sav. Ass'n.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 718 S.W.2d 456,19 Ark.App. 133 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. SECURITY SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Appellee. 86-119. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Ted Goodloe & Thomas B. Keys, Little Rock, for appellant.
Hubbard, Patton, Peek, Haltom & Roberts by William G. Bullock, Texarkana, Tex., for appellee.
Appellant condemned a total of 4.38 acres of land owned by appellee and, pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. Section 76-538 (Repl.1981), deposited into escrow $32,500 as estimated just compensation for such taking. Appellant entered the land on July 22, 1983, and a trial on the issue of damages was held on October 2, 1985. The jury returned a verdict of $60,000. The trial court set the interest rate at 11.77% on the amount of the judgment in excess of the original deposit into escrow. Appellant's sole point on appeal is that the 11.77% interest rate set by the court is excessive and should be set aside. We do not agree and therefore we affirm the lower court's award.
In Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Stupenti, 222 Ark. 9, 257 S.W.2d 37 (1953), the court held that even though at trial a landowner is given judgment for the present value of his land taken, he has been deprived of its use and rents from the date of entry by the condemning authority until the date of judgment, and the State should be obligated to pay the landowner for this. In ruling that interest should be paid from the date of taking, the court stated:
To allow the State to escape this liability would be contrary to our State Constitution. Art. 2, section 22, reads:
Just compensation means full compensation. While the real loss to appellee might well be described as the denial of the use of his land for the time stated, yet the universally recognized rule for measuring this loss is by calculation of interest on the value of the land.
Id. at pp. 12-13, 257 S.W.2d 37.
The court recently expanded on what constitutes full compensation in Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Vick, 284 Ark. 372, 682 S.W.2d 731 (1985), which appears to be controlling here. In Vick, the trial court allowed the appellee landowners interest at the statutory rate of 6% per annum on the difference between the appellant's deposit and the amount of the verdict. Ark.Stat.Ann. Section 76-536 (Repl.1981). Appellees argued that a 6% rate of interest was so inadequate as to amount to an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation. To support their contention, the landowners proved that, during the period between the Commission's entry on the land in 1981 and the return of the verdict in 1984, money could be invested in bank...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. City of Fayetteville
...CD rates which was a formula affirmed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in a previous case. See Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Security Savings Ass'n, 19 Ark.App. 133, 718 S.W.2d 456 (1986). Wilson would have us reverse the circuit court and hold that the failure to factor foreign interest......
-
Board of Com'rs of Little Rock Mun. Water Works v. Rollins, CA
...the land to make improvements and the date of entry becomes the date of taking. Stupenti, supra; Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Security Savings Ass'n, 19 Ark.App. 133, 718 S.W.2d 456 (1986). The date of entry was determinative in these cases because the property owners were deprived of t......
-
Beaver Water District v. Garner, CA 07-777 (Ark. App. 3/12/2008)
...has affirmed prejudgment interest based upon a formula that took the average of local CD rates. Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n v. Security Sav. Ass'n, 19 Ark. App. 133, 718 S.W.2d 456 (1986). However, we hold that this case is controlled by Wooten v. McClendon, 272 Ark. 61, 612 S.W.2d 105 (1981......